Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« This Week In The National Law Journal | Main | Kaye Scholer Adds White Collar Partner in Washington »

January 30, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20167615af2cd970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court Fails to Communicate Effectively to Public, Law Scholar Argues:

Comments

Kyu Ho Youm

The article is an informative summary of Dean Chemerinsky's excellent keynote speech. His thoughtful suggestions deserve careful attention from those who wish for more, not less, access to the Supreme Court. In one way or another, the Supreme Court is trailing, not leading, the rest of the world in making judicial proceedings accessible, especially in the global 21st century. I hope the Chemerinsky speech will be available to the public ASAP, for it should be widely disseminate--yes, well beyond the BYU Law School.

RG

The author ignores the real problem with the Court -- It has become openly political. When justices attend and speak at political fundraisers, and a justice's wife gets more than double his salary for political advocacy on behalf of people with a strong and extreme political agenda that he fails to disclose, then the public would be crazy NOT to question the ethics of the court and the validity of its opinions. It looks like the court is for sale, just like our politicians. The only way to address this is to STOP IT! If a justice and his family cannot live on the salary the justice is paid, then that justice should resign.

Joe

The idea of explaining each refusal is imho off but no one bats a 1.00.

The clear headnotes idea makes sense. This would be particularly helpful when five justices split on the reasoning. The headnotes can get particularly confusing there, including apparently to lower courts.

A summary of concurrences and dissents would be helpful too.

Simon

The court receives roughly a petition for cert every hour (9000 cases divided over 365 days); I think that as punishment for his inane proposal to explaining each denial, Dean Chemerinsky should be forced to write the denial memo in every case filed until he recants. People familiar with the court's docket, however, will realize that that's cruel and unusual punishment, and he'd break before day's end.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements